On
the surface, it’s a common display. A bin of apples with a sale sign
greets customers as they enter the grocery store. Behind the scenes,
however, it’s unchartered territory. Those apples are too small to be
considered sufficient quality, or grade, for retail grocery stores. They
were destined to be juice, cattle feed, or maybe even landfill waste
until a few crafty folks and a bold supermarket decided to break the
grade barrier.Meet FoodStar and its courageous partner Andronico’s Community Market,
a small Northern California grocery chain. Together, they are taking a
chance on the idea that maybe we consumers aren’t as picky as most
supermarkets seem to think we are. Maybe we’d be willing to buy a
slightly smaller apple that only has 37 percent red coverage instead of
the requisite 40 percent needed to qualify as the “fancy” grade that
stores usually buy (yes, it’s actually measured). Maybe we consumers
would even consider it a score to get a bag of Pink Lady apples for just
69 cents per pound.Last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a survey of farmers that indicated sometimes as much as 30 percent of fresh produce does not make it off the farm.
This is a waste of nutrition in addition to all of the money and
resources that went into growing that food. One key driver that causes
fruits and veggies to be left on the field or fed to cattle is that they
are not cosmetically perfect enough
to meet the high standards that grocery stores mandate. Many retailers
insist that fruits and veggies meet exact cosmetic criteria, including
specifications for size, color, weight, and blemish level — leading to
culling and incorporating waste as part of doing business. Waste,
however, is not cheap. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that
supermarkets lose $15 billion [PDF] each year in fruit and vegetable losses alone.Andronico’s Jonathan Packman said of the project, “We’re proud to be
working with FoodStar to launch this initiative, since it simultaneously
addresses several problems in the food supply chain. FoodStar presented
Andronico’s with an opportunity to partner on this concept to divert
food from the waste stream and create a viable, marketable product.”Hanoian“This is very groundbreaking stuff, because a retailer has broken the grade barrier and
passed along the significant cost savings to the consumer,” says Ron
Clark, coordinator for the Farm Direct aspect of FoodStar and former
director of the California Farm to Family
program, which distributed 120 million pounds of rescued produce to
food banks in 2011 alone. By breaking the “grade barrier,” he is
describing the highly specified standard of quality and aesthetics that
most supermarkets would not dare to go below for fear a customer will be
disappointed with their produce offerings. As Packman explains, “While
selling from the same open bin of apples that the grower sends to us may
seem simple, it actually represents a significant departure from how
things are normally done in the grocery business.”These were perfectly good apples we’re talking about, just with a bit
of a Goldilocks problem. They were one quality level below what grocery
stores traditionally buy. They were also too small to be used as
“peelers,” which eventually become apple pie, applesauce, and McDonald’s
Happy Meal snacks. In fact, they were actually on their way to becoming
caramel apples for Halloween, but were pulled off the sorting line
because orders for caramel apples were not as large as originally
thought. Given this predicament, the apples would normally have been
sent to the juice market if there were demand, or to cattle feed or a
landfill if not. By intercepting them, FoodStar and Andronico’s are
ensuring that these apples are going to their highest and best use
possible — feeding people fresh food, affordably.There are a few key aspects to this plan that make it work. First,
the featured product changes, which allows surplus product in the supply
chain to be absorbed in the way it happens — spontaneously. One week
it’s Pink Ladies, the next week Granny Smiths. Second, decisions are
made to keep the cost down, such as selling the apples out of large bins
instead of the shipper paying to box them and the grocery store paying
to unpack them. And finally, savings are passed on to the consumer,
effectively warning the consumer that they might have to be slightly
more tolerant of imperfections they wouldn’t normally see on the shelf.
By carrying the FoodStar brand and locating the product in a different
place, Andronico’s avoids the risk that consumers will judge their whole
produce offering on this product.Though they’re only a few weeks into the program, Packman reports
that “so far, it’s going really well; we have sold over two tons of
apples already, while actually improving our overall produce sales.”
Everyone wins in this scenario. For Andronico’s, it’s a way to bring in
traffic and offer their customers a good deal. FoodStar, who sources the
product, is able to provide good value with products that would
otherwise go to lower uses or waste. The supplier is able to sell the
apples at a better price. And for us consumers, we score a bag of apples
for half the normal cost.Apple pie, anyone?

Dana is a food and
agriculture-focused project scientist for the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), based in San Francisco. She blogs regularly about food
waste here.

Report: 'Big Food' Infiltrates Nutrition Association

Coke, Nestlé, corn lobby "educate" dietitians

- Beth Brogan, staff writer

"Big Food" companies such as Coca-Cola and Hershey have
hijacked the largest association of nutrition professionals, according
to a damning new report by pubic health attorney and author Michele
Simon.
"Healthwashing" Lays potato chips at the Frito-Lay booth at the 2012
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (Photograph:
Michele Simon) But the "deep infiltration" of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) is largely unacceptable to the vast majority of its 74,000 members."The food industry's deep infiltration of the nation's top nutrition
organization raises serious questions not only about that profession's
credibility, but also about its policy positions," Simon writes in the
executive summary of "And Now a Word From Our Sponsors: Are America's Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?"Among the study's most shocking findings:

Processed food giants ConAgra and General Mills have been AND sponsors for 10 of the last 12 years.

Among the messages taught in Coca-Cola-sponsored continuing
education courses are: sugar is not harmful to children; "Aspartame is
completely safe, including for children over one year"; and "A majority
of studies have not found a link between sugar and behavior in
children."

Worse, groups such as the Corn Refiners Association—lobbyists for
high fructose corn syrup—and companies such as PepsiCo., Kraft Foods
and Nestlé remain "partners" of the organization, and for a fee are able
to offer continuing education credits to registered
dietitians—essentially "free publicity under the guise of education,"
Simon writes.In a post on Simon's website, AppetiteforProfit.com, registered dietician Andy Bellatti writes of the 2012 Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo in October:

Sadly, the event once again demonstrated how this registered
dietitians' accrediting organization drags its own credential through
the mud by prioritizing Big Food's corporate interests over sound
nutrition an health ... I am embarrassed that the nation’s largest
nutrition trade organization maintains partnerships with companies that
contribute to our nation’s diet-related health problems ... Big Food’s
presence was sometimes more covert. One session on food additives was
sponsored by the International Food Information Council, the same food
industry front group that last year assured us that pesticides are safe.

Members of AND also overwhelmingly find the relationship between the
organization and Big Food unacceptable, with 97 percent surveyed
contending that the academy should verify that a sponsor’s corporate
mission is consistent with that of the Academy prior to accepting them;
and 80 percent saying that sponsorship implies academy endorsement of a
company and its products."Some of the food companies’ products are full of questionable and/or
harmful ingredients," registered dietitian Carla S. Caccia told Simon.
"Are GMOs safe in moderation? I don’t know. Caramel coloring? High
fructose corn syrup? Is lean meat still the healthy choice even though
the animal was given general antibiotics? Is grilled chicken still the
healthy choice even though it ate feed contaminated with arsenic? I
don’t know and I’m supposed to be the expert! I would like to turn to
AND for these answers but I can’t trust them because they are in
partnership with food companies whose products are full of these
things."“The food companies are being very strategic,” Simon told nutrition educator and journalist Kristin Wartman in an interview.
“They know that RDs are the vehicles through which information is
carried to the consumers, so they want to make sure that their message
gets out loud and clear to these professionals.”Wartman points to a passage in Simon's report in which she describes a McDonald’s booth offering smoothies and oatmeal.Simon writes:

To visit the McDonald’s booth, you’d think the fast food giant only
sold oatmeal and smoothies. I asked a few RDs why they were there and
they said they were hungry. Fair enough, but it was clear that
McDonald’s had succeeded in positioning itself as a purveyor of healthy
food while feeding RDs breakfast.

"Simon points out that food companies are normalizing their products
at these conferences," Wartman writes. "'The message is: It’s perfectly
fine to promote processed food as your everyday diet, as long as it has
whole grains sprinkled on it or has fewer calories.'" SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/24-6

Uncovered, the 'toxic' gene hiding in GM crops: Revelation throws new doubt over safety of foods

Biotech supporters argue there is no evidence that GM foods are harmful

By
Sean Poulter, Consumer Affairs EditorPUBLISHED:
18:20 EST, 21 January 2013
|
UPDATED:
06:03 EST, 24 January 2013
A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety. A new study conducted by the EU has shown that standard tests for GM
foods may be missing a potentially poisonous gene for humans.GM
crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for
both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A
new study by the EU's official food watchdog, the European Food Safety
Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process
for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

As a result, watchdogs have not
investigated its impact on human health and the plants themselves when
assessing whether they were safe.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.It
was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du
Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They
discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing
and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene,
which is known as 'Gene VI'.

In this country, these crops are typically fed to farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs.Significantly,
the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI
'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.

Such
changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They
could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more
vulnerable to pests.

Critics say the revelations make clear that the GM approvals process, which has been in place for 20 years, is fatally flawed. They argue the only correct response is to recall all of the crops and food products involved.Director
of the campaigning group, GM Freeze, Pete Riley, said the discovery of
the gene, 'totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise
and predictable'.He said: 'This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe. 'Authorisation
for these crops must be suspended immediately, and they should be
withdrawn from sale, until a full and extended review of their safety
has been carried out.'

Typically,
GM crops are modified in the laboratory to give them resistance to
being sprayed with powerful weed killers such as Monsanto's Round-up.

This
means that, in theory, fields can be doused with the chemical, so
wiping out the weeds and allowing the food plants to thrive.

It was previously assumed that virus genes are
not present in plants once they are grown in the field and reach
consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the case

The modification process
involves inserting genes into the plants using a technique that allows
them to piggyback on viruses that are commonly found in the soil and
plants.It has been
assumed that virus genes are not present in the plant once it is grown
in the field and reaches consumers, however it is now clear that this is
not the case.

A
review of the EFSA research in Independent Science News said the
presence of the viral gene appears to have been missed by biotech
companies, universities and government regulators.'This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure,' it said.'There
are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human
consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops,
including their natural pest resistance.

'A
reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a
human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future
experiments.'

Biotech supporters argue that there is no evidence from countries such as the USA that eating GM food causes any harm. However, the reality is that no health monitoring has taken place to establish this.The
findings will embarrass the government and the food and farming
Secretary, Owen Patterson, who has embarked on a pro-GM propaganda
exercise designed to win over sceptical consumers.Mr Patterson recently rejected public concerns as 'humbug' and 'complete nonsense'.Policy
director at the Soil Association, Peter Melchett said: 'For years, GM
companies have made a deliberate and chilling effort to stop independent
scientists from looking at their products.

'This is what happens when there is a complete absence of independent scrutiny of their GM crops.' Biotech firms are represented by the Agricultural Biotechnology Council(ABC). Its chairman, Dr Julian Little, said the EFSA study was one small part of a strict and complex scrutiny process.He
said: 'Over the past 25 years, the European Commission has funded more
than 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups
which have found no higher risks to the environment or food chain from
GM crops than from conventional plants and organisms.'Furthermore,
nearly three trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten
without a single substantiated case of ill-health. The combination of
these two facts can give consumers a huge amount of confidence in the
safety of GM crops.' GM
critics and EFSA are at odds over the implications of the research
paper, which was written by the deputy chairman of the organisation’s
advisory panel on the issue and a former senior member of staff.EFSA
insists that the research highlighting the presence of Gene VI does not
represent a new discovery of a viral gene and does not indicate a
safety concern about GM crops already approved.It
said the viral gene ‘cannot infect animals or humans and therefore
presents no threat to human or animal health’. This is challenged by GM
critics who say there is no research evidence to justify this statement.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html#ixzz2Iupsqu37Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Dear Friends,On behalf of
the steering committee for the California Right to Know campaign, and
our 500,000 members and subscribers in California, we want to thank
you for your incredible support for Prop 37. With your help, we’ve
built a powerful Right to Know Movement. Our Movement, with its call
to label genetically engineered foods here in the U.S., is sweeping
the nation.Over the holidays, the California Secretary of State posted the
final results for Prop 37. The results were shocking to big food
manufacturers and politicians across the country. But they were not
shocking to those of us who understood from the beginning the power of
a grassroots campaign built on truth and transparency.Despite being outspent nearly 6 to 1, and a scandalous
campaign of dirty tricks and unending barrage of lies and misleading
TV ads, we nearly won: YES – 48.6% to NO – 51.4%. After taking on some
of the most powerful corporations on the planet, we lost by a mere
353,657 votes.No one likes losing, especially those of us who formed the steering
committee for Prop 37. But we want you to know that your hard work and
sacrifice have built an enduring movement to label GMOs here in the
U.S.We also want you to know that we will be back in California
in 2014 with another ballot initiative for GMO labeling, and that in
the meantime the Prop 37 steering committee members are deeply
involved in a GMO labeling ballot initiative in Washington State
(I-522), as well as legislative battles in Vermont, Connecticut and
many others. Chances for passing mandatory labeling in all three of
these states in 2013 are looking good.In Washington State, I-522, an initiative to label GMOs, recently
qualified for the ballot in 2013. Activists there gathered more than
340,000 signatures and the fight has already begun. The initiative
already has strong support from farmers, consumers and several key
state legislators. And in Vermont and Connecticut, where GMO labeling
bills failed last year after Monsanto threatened to sue those states,
activists are working once again to push through laws this year.This fall, more than 6 million Californians voted Yes on 37 to
label genetically engineered foods. And millions more, from every
state in the country, rallied around this historic battle to label
GMOs. People in all 50 states donated time and money to help get the
word out. We stood against impossible odds, in the fight against some
of the most powerful and corrupt companies in the world. All for the
simple right to know what’s in our food.We narrowly lost this one battle, but we built an unstoppable
movement. And we turned a relatively unknown issue into a mainstream
public debate.Just as the country came together to support Prop 37, we must come
together to support GMO labeling laws in Washington,
Vermont,
Connecticut
and everywhere active citizens put labeling bills forward in their
state legislatures. It is more urgent than ever that we pass GMO labeling laws this
year. Right now, 13 new GMO crops await approval at the USDA. The
first genetically engineered animal, AquaBounty’s GMO salmon, could be
approved by the FDA in less than 60 days. Now more than ever, we need to stand together to accomplish our
simple goal of labeling genetically engineered foods here in
America.So, stay tuned, stay engaged. Check out the California
Right to Know Facebook page where new materials are being posted
everyday. And let’s take back our right to know what’s in our
food!Regards and Solidarity,The Steering Committee of the California Right to Know Campaign

Food as Weapon

Dr. Vandana Shiva Brings Earth Democracy to Hawai‘i

by Tiffany Hervey | Jan 9, 2013

Cover

Albert Einstein was Dr. Vandana Shiva’s hero as a
little girl growing up in India. “I was always fascinated with the
workings of nature, and Einstein was the kind of scientist I wanted to
be,” says Shiva, born in 1952. Trained as a physicist, with a Ph.D. in
philosophy, she became an activist known globally for her opposition to
genetically engineered (GE) crops and her advocacy for sustainable
farming. Dr. Shiva is coming to the Islands next week to speak about
food justice and ecologically responsible, diversified
agriculture–issues that are pivotal as Hawaii, a cradle of GE seed corn,
begins to address its severe food insecurity.

Dr. Shiva has authored more than 20 books on globalization, food
supply, eco-feminism and biotechnology. Her writings reveal that modern
industrial agriculture, a high-cost, chemical-intensive method, is
actually a recipe for hunger. As an expert on biodiversity and
intellectual property rights (IPR) legislation, Dr. Shiva has received
numerous awards. She has assisted Africa, Asia, Latin America, Ireland,
Switzerland and Austria in grassroots campaigns against genetic
engineering. Time Magazine named her an environmental hero in 2003.Growing up in the Dehradun forest on her mother’s farm, where wheat,
chickpeas, mustard, sesame and sugarcane grew amongst guava, lemon and
lychee trees, Shiva saw firsthand how much food could come from a small
farm. Her father was a forester. “That childhood did shape my values,
and my love for nature. More importantly, my parents taught me two
things by example. Follow your conscience, and be fearless.”

Earth Democracy

Shiva began fighting globalization in 1987 when she discovered the
biotech industry’s plans to genetically engineer and patent seeds.
That’s when she started the nonprofit organization Navdanya, the
movement to save seed. In 1993, she mobilized 500,000 farmers in India
for a rally in Bangalore to say, “No to Patents on Seed and Free Trade.”
She also helped form the International Forum on Globalization, which
organized the anti-globalization protests against the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in Seattle in 1999.“Everything we predicted has happened,” Shiva recalls via email from
Delhi, where she resides. “Inequalities have grown, democracy has
eroded, economies are collapsing, an oligarchy is emerging. Our goal is
to defend the planet, people’s rights, and democracy. This is what I
call Earth Democracy.”Earth Democracy translates into a mission of preserving biodiversity
and creating seed sovereignty, food sovereignty and water democracy.
Navdanya has helped set up 111 community seed banks throughout India,
trained more than 500,000 farmers in saving seeds and practicing
sustainable agriculture over the past two decades and helped set up the
largest direct-marketing, fair-trade organic network in India.“I have followed Gandhi’s footsteps of Swaraj, self rule, and Satyagraha, the force of truth and the refusal to obey unjust laws,” she explains. “We have practiced seed satyagraha, the refusal to obey patent laws on seed, since seed is not an invention, and seed monopolies are immoral and unethical.”

The biggest myth

Shiva wishes to dispel the misconception that industrial agriculture
produces more food. In reality, “Industrial agriculture promotes
monocultures, which are nutritionally impoverished,” she says.
Monocultures (growing a single crop every year on the same land without
rotation) and GE crops use 10 times more water than ecological
agriculture, and are the single biggest reason for the water crisis,
according to Shiva. She adds that genetic engineering has not increased
the yield of a single crop.“To turn the world into a dependency on staples [like corn, soy,
sugar and rice] has nothing to [do] with feeding the world, it has to do
with control,” Shiva said in an interview for The Future of Food
video series. “Maximizing the production of commodities for
international trade is directly proportionate to the decrease in
nutrition availability to local communities, which is why food
insecurity grows.”In her book Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply
(South End Press, 2000), Shiva explains that the growth of agribusiness
in the U.S. has gone hand-in-hand with U.S. foreign policy to
deliberately create hunger in order to make the world dependent on our
food supplies, allowing us to exert control over their decisionmaking.
Shiva says that the U.S. has been using hunger as an instrument of war
since the Vietnam War, when the term “food as weapon” was popularized as
chemical weapons were used to destroy vegetation and crops.The U.S. Foreign Trade Act strong-arms other countries into
participating in monopolies that cause growing economic injustice,
according to Shiva. “We were bullied to allow Monsanto in India,” she
says. As a result, she adds, Monsanto was responsible for triggering an
epidemic of 270,000 farmer suicides from 1995–2010 in India’s cotton
belt, where the company had established a genetically engineered Bt
cottonseed monopoly. “Monsanto controls 95 percent of the cottonseed,
which is now all Bt cotton,” Shiva explains. “The costs are 8,000
percent more than cottonseeds that were available earlier. Farmers are
getting trapped in debt, and indebted farmers are committing suicide.”

Chemical treadmill

According to Shiva, GE crops harness farmers to a chemical treadmill.
In India, Bt cotton called “Bollgard” was supposed to control the
Bollworm pest. Today, the Bollworm has become resistant to Bt and now
Monsanto sells Bollgard II cotton, containing two additional toxic
genes. New pests have emerged, and farmers are using more pesticides.
Pesticide use has increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced,
according to research by Navdanya. A study recently published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton by small farmers than for other varieties.Although Monsanto’s advertising campaign in India reported a 50
percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted
by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found
that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company
promised. Navdanya’s research in India has shown that contrary to
Monsanto’s claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the real yield
is an average of 400–500 kg per acre.GE crops create resistant pests and, through pollen drift, weeds.
They need an almost sterile environment, so more pesticides are needed
on these crops. In the U.S., GE crops increased overall pesticide use by
318.4 million pounds over their first 13 years on the marketplace
(1996–2008), according to a study derived from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
data by Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center.
Increased concentration of chemicals in air, water, and soil in the
communities surrounding GE fields is a legitimate public health concern.

Pesticide drift

Dr. Shiva will visit Kauai because it’s the island with the most
extensive GE crop plantings (approximately 13,000 acres) in Hawaii,
where biotech companies Dow, BASF, Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer
operate on ag lands throughout the state. More than a year ago, a group
of 150 Waimea, Kauai residents filed suit against Pioneer Hi-Bred (a
subsidiary of chemical giant DuPont) over allegedly pesticide-laden dust
that has been blowing onto their properties for more than a decade from
GE fields. According to the lawsuit, filed Dec. 2011 in 5th Circuit
Court, Pioneer uses dangerous pesticides during open-air testing of GE
crops without controlling airborne pollutants, as required by state and
county law.

Toxic impacts

Dr. Shiva further contends that GMOs have their own unique health and
environmental risks. This, she points out, is why a UN Biosafety
Protocol was created in 2000. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an
international treaty that seeks to protect biological diversity from the
potential risks posed by GMOs. It establishes an advanced procedure for
ensuring that countries are provided with information necessary to make
informed decisions before agreeing to import GMOs into their territory.
To date, 163 countries and the European Union have ratified or acceded
to the Protocol. The U.S. has not. In addition, the biotech industry
that brought the world agrichemicals tries to silence all scientists who
do research on the health and environmental impacts of GMOs, states
Shiva. Contamination of crops, soil and water, along with unknown risks
of human consumption, are the major issues of scientific debate.Monsanto’s argument is that the Bt toxin in GE crops poses no danger
to human health because the protein breaks down in the human gut.
However, a recently published Canadian study entitled, “Maternal and
fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in
Eastern Township of Quebec, Canada,” (Reproductive Toxicology,
May 31, 2011) found the Bt toxin in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant
women tested and in 80 percent of their umbilical cord and fetal blood.

Seed slaves

GMOs go hand-in-hand with patents. Patents mean royalties, which help
to cause farmer debt. In addition to dangers to public health and
ecosystems, biotechnology allows for corporations to own seeds and crops
through patents and IPRs. Patents provide royalties for the patent
holder, creating corporate monopolies, which results in monster profits
for biotech companies like Monsanto and inescapable debt for small
farmers.The most dramatic case of patent bullying via contamination and
genetic pollution made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada when Percy
Schmeiser, a canola seed grower whose crop was contaminated by
Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola refused to pay Monsanto a license fee
when he found their seed had contaminated his fields. Contamination of
canola in Canada is so severe that 90 percent of certified non-GE Canola
seed samples contain GE material. Instead of paying Percy for the
damage of contamination in accordance with its “Polluter Pays”
principle, Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using their
patented technology without a license, and then sued Percy for
Intellectual Property theft (patent infringement) to the tune of
$300,000.After six years of court battles, the court ruled in a 5-4 majority
that, intentionally or not, growing genetically modified plants
constitutes the use of the patented invention. This case increased the
protection available to biotech companies in Canada and set a precedent
globally.“I have called what is happening a new form of imperialism:
bio-imperialism,” Dr. Shiva contends. “I see it as a new form of
slavery–seed slavery.” She asserts that all communities should be
sovereign in their seed supply. “That is why we should have seed banks
of open pollinated seeds everywhere. Communities should become free of
GMOs, chemicals, and poisons. Working with nature on the principles of
agroecology is the best road to sustainability.”

Food sovereignty

In Hawaii, a status quo with an immense amount of privately owned
land leased to the highest bidder has allowed Monsanto and other
agribusiness “farmers” to use prime ag land to produce export crops that
do not feed us.For example, Kamehameha Schools has recently come under fire for
leasing 1,033 acres on Oahu’s North Shore to Monsanto since 1999.
According to Neil Hannahs, director of KS’s Land Assets divison, “We
have looked into Monsanto’s pesticide application methods and are
comfortable that they are following all regulatory protocols. We do not
have any seed corn fields close to any schools or immediately adjacent
to any residences,” Hannah wrote in an email.Shiva maintains that the way to resist agribusiness and further
pollution is by creating local, regenerative, resilient economies and
communities. She says that communities with the greatest food insecurity
today, such as Hawaii with our 85 percent imported food, could be the
most self-sufficient. The solution is biodiversity–growing diverse food
crops using organic and ecological methods. Such multiculture can
produce five to ten times more nutrition than monocultures can,
according to Shiva, who is currently advising the government of Bhutan
on how to achieve their goal of becoming the first fully organic
food-sovereign country. Hawaii already has a successful example: MAO
Farms’ 24 acres of organic crops produce approximately 4,000 to 6,000
pounds of produce per week.Hannahs adds that KS’s North Shore Plan includes a future 100-acre
organic farm near Chun’s Reef, already has diversified Kahuku Farms and
Twin Bridge Farms among their lessees, and is doubling their ag acreage
in Punaluu. “We have many small farmers there and have invested heavily
in the irrigation system, as well as in land clearing in order to
increase the amount of acreage contributing to local food production,”
Hannahs says.In profiteering hands, food can be used as a weapon for control and
oppression. However, the people can use food as weapon by voting with
their dollar for every item on the grocery list. “To protect ourselves
from GMOs we need to shift to local, organic food,” Shiva urges. “Know
your farmer. Know your food.”

Vandana Shiva Visits Hawaii

Dr. Shiva’s visit is sponsored by Hawaii SEED and Ceres Trust. She
will be accompanied by Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the
International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and the Center for
Food Safety, and local GMO labeling advocate Walter Ritte.Events are FREE but one must reserve seats ahead of time and check in at venue ticket tables.

Thu., Jan. 17

Common Pesticides

Conventional and GE food crops are sprayed with many pesticides that
can endanger human and ecological health. GE crops use more pesticides.
Below are some pesticides used in Hawaii.Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil-dwelling bacterium that
kills insects, traditionally used as a spray by organic farmers. Now,
Bt-toxin-secreting GE corn, cotton, potato and soy are grown.2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which was an
ingredient in Agent Orange, is a weed killer commonly used on commercial
crops like wheat, corn and rice. One study, published by the American
Cancer Society in 1999, suggests that 2,4-D may contribute to the
incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which has increased in most Western
countries during the last few decades.Atrazine is commonly used with corn crops. The European Union
banned all use of atrazine in 2004 because of persistent groundwater
contamination. Studies have suggested that the chemical may be dangerous
to reproductive organs in humans and other species. Recent
epidemiological and animal research has suggested that exposure to high
levels of atrazine during specific periods of pregnancy could result in
birth defects, low birth weight babies, menstrual problems and cancer.Glyphosate/Roundup, a weed killer, was discovered by a
Monsanto chemist in 1970. By 2007, it was the most-used herbicide in
U.S. agriculture. Many staple crops, like soy, alfalfa, canola,
rapeseed, sorghum, corn, sugar beet, cotton and wheat have been
genetically engineered by Monsanto to be resistant to it (“Roundup
Ready”).Chlorpyrifos/Lorsban is a neurotoxic insecticide introduced by
Dow Chemical in 1965. While it is one of the most widely used
insecticides in commercial agriculture, according to the EPA, it has
been banned for use in homes since 2001 due to health risks to children.
Chronic exposure has been linked to developmental disorders and
autoimmune deficiencies. Lower birth weights and smaller head
circumferences have been found in children whose mothers were exposed to
the chemical during pregnancy.Neonicotinoids (nicotine seed coatings) are insecticides that
affects the central nervous system of insects. Several European
countries have suspended the use of neonicotinoids in response to acute
poisoning of honeybees associated with Colony Collapse Disorder. Data
currently being reviewed by the EPA suggest that neonicotinic residues
can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants.Dicamba (Banvel, Oracle, Vanquish) is a benzoic acid herbicide
used on rye, asparagus, barley, corn, oats, soybeans, sugarcane and
wheat. It persists in soil, may leach into groundwater, and is very
irritating to eyes.
Sources: Fact sheets from the National Pesticide Information Center, [npic.orst.edu] and Beyond Pesticides, a non-profit organization. [beyondpesticides.org] Source: http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2013/01/food-as-weapon-2/ Honolulu Weekly

Scientists respond to Mark Lynas

Wednesday, 23 January 2013 21:14

Responses to Lynas by Indian scientists1."It is the scientists who are asking for regulation and precaution"2."In science, we go by evidence"NOTE:
Although Mark Lynas's recent speech has had very little media coverage
in the UK, where it went barely reported outside of the farming press,
in India he has been all over the press and is even reportedly being
flown in to conference there as an "eminent person". Here are two
responses by Indian scientists to all the fuss. A
key element in the reception that Mark Lynas has obtained is his claim
to having been a founder of the anti-GM movement in 1995. But this is
completely untrue, even as regards the UK. Here's a telling comment that
Dr Sue Mayer, who was science director at Greenpeace from 1990-1995,
has sent to Mark Lynas: "Hello
Mark, I was part of the anti-GM movement from 1990 onwards (ie before
1995), first at Greenpeace and then when I started GeneWatch UK. I am
not usually one to make claims for myself but I think I can lay claim to
having been one of the leaders of the campaign in the UK thoughout the
1990s and until 2007 when I left GeneWatch. It's strange that although
we did speak on the phone once in the late 90s we never met and I missed
the fact that you helped start the anti-GM movement..!! No doubt you
did attend some rallies and workshops and did some direct action, but
not help start the anti-GM movement in any significant way. I think this
is a very misleading claim and you should feel ashamed of yourself. I
wouldn't normally worry about people puffing themselves up like this but
I am concerned that you are letting this be used to promote yourself
and the biotech industry. Maybe you should think this self
aggrandisement through a bit?"------1."It is the scientists who are asking for regulation and precaution"Prasanna MohantyGovernance Now, January 21 2013http://governancenow.com/views/interview/it-scientists-who-are-asking-regulation-and-precaution*GM
controversy: In conversation, Suman Sahai, geneticist, Padma Shree
awardee and winner of 2004 Borlaug Award for contribution to agriculture
and environmentWhat do you think of environmentalist Mark Lynas’ sudden change of heart – from being an anti-GM crusader to a pro-GM crusader?It
is a renewed propaganda push to create goodwill around GM crop. This is
a product that very large corporations are trying to sell. India is a
very particular target because of large scale rejections (of GM crop) in
Europe, many parts of Africa and Latin America. For these corporations,
there are only two big potential markets – India and China. Everybody
knows it is impossible to influence Chinese policy because they are very
determined about what they want and what not. India is perceived as a
soft target with a big market and therefore a huge amount of propaganda
is directed towards India and Indian policy making.What is your stand on promoting GM crops in India?As
a scientist, geneticist, this is my subject. It is the scientists who
are asking for regulation and precaution right from the beginning. The
(GM) industry is trying to cut corners on regulation because adequate
bio-safety testing costs money. It is my firm belief that had this
technology been purely in public sector it would still be in the
laboratory. It would only come to market after it was sufficiently and
properly tested.If
you want to engage in science and technology that has a downside – any
potential risk of the GM product having an allergenic component – but
potential for benefits, then you have to be super careful to evaluate
safety.------2."In science, we go by evidence"Prasanna MohantyGovernance Now, January 18 2013http://governancenow.com/views/interview/science-we-go-evidence*On
GM crops: a conversation with Pushpa M Bhargava, eminent
biotechnologist, Padma Shree awardee and founder of the Centre for
Cellular and Molecular Biology, HyderabadDr
Bhargava, what do you think of environmentalist Mark Lynas’ sudden
change of heart – from being an anti-GM crusader to a pro-GM crusader?I think it doesn’t change the situation one bit. We have no credentials of him and one swallow doesn’t make a summer.In
science, we go by evidence. Nothing has been added to the evidence that
we have for or against the GM crop. Opinion is completely irrelevant in
science if it is not based on evidence, existing or new. In science, if
we ever change our opinion we always give reasons. Here, none is given.To
the community of scientists, he (Lynas) is a completely unknown entity
and no different from somebody one might pick up on the street randomly.How do we know that he is not purchased?

How
do we know the person exists and not merely a story created by the
multinational seed companies making GMOs? The very fact that this story
has been released without scientific evidence makes the case against GM
crops stronger.What is your stand on promoting GM crops in India?Firstly,
we must make a socio-economic assessment whether there is a problem at
all. We had a problem in case of cotton but not for brinjal at all.Secondly,
we must see if alternatives are available to the GM technology. In case
of cotton, there was a problem but there were alternatives – integrated
pest management, bio-pesticides and organic agriculture. So we didn’t
need it.Third,
if it turns out that we need GM crops we must go through a very strict
safety assessment. This has not been done for any GM crop (in India).
Nearly 30 tests need to be conducted. Out of these, about six tests have
been done and that, too, done badly. So for all practical purposes, no
safety assessment has been done.Therefore, a moratorium on GM crops is justified.SOURCE: http://gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14600%3Ascientists-respond-to-mark-lynas